Andhra Pradesh Court January 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
V.K. Abdul Jabbar Sahib Son Vs. Vice-chairman and Managing Director, A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD309; 1998(3)ALT638
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, ACJ.1. The petitioners are dealers in Beedi-leaves registered under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. Their places of business are situated in Tamil Nadu State. The petitioner in W.P. No.27129 of 1996 is a manufacturer of beedi-leaves as well. They entered into agreements with A.P. Forest Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') for the purchase of abnus leaves plucked and collected during 1997 season from the forest areas of Kothagudem division and Mancherial division in Andhra Pradesh. They are challenging the legality of the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (2nd respondent) to the Corporation in his reference No.A1 (3/2312/96 dt 18.10.1996. By that letter, the Commissioner clarified that the movement of beedi-leaves to the other State is not occasioned by any contract of sale and therefore the sale by the Corporation to a dealer from the other State is also a local ...
Mc. Dowell and Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner of Excise, A.P., H ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD417; 1998(2)ALT593
ORDERD. Reddeppa Reddi, J.1. The Petitioners in these three writ petitions are manufacturers of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, having their factories in Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh. They have filed these writ petitions for a declaration that the provision in Rule 12-A of A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Rules') prescribing the time limit for production of excise verification reports is only directory and not mandatory and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by them as contemplated under Rule 12(1) of the Rules.2. The Rules made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred under Section 72 r/w Sections 9,11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 28 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and published in A.P. Gazette (BO) RS to Pt.II dated 14-9-70, inter alia, provide for export of Indian Liquor by the manufacturers of Liquor or Brewers within this Stale to the importers in other States including the...
A.B. Srinivasan Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD640; 1998(3)ALT156
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddy, Acj 1. The appellant herein filed W.P.No. 12775 of 1997 questioning the order dated 10-6-1997 passed by the third respondent consequent to the order of the second respondent dated 7-6-1997 directing transfer of the petitioner from Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi to Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple, Gandi, Cuddapah district. The petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, which is an institution governed by the provisions of A. P. Charitable and HinduReligions Institutions & Endowments Act. The said institution is being administered by the custodian of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. As regards the circumstances warranting the transfer of petitioner, it cannot be gain said that there is adequate and ample material as disclosed from the averments in the counter-affidavit. The only point urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner of Endowments (Respondent No.2) has no jurisdicti...
Sable Weghire and Company Ltd., Pune Vs. A.P. Forest Development Corpo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALD141; 1998(4)ALT433
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, ACJ 1. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacture of beedies and are registered dealers under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. They entered into agreement with the Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) for the purchase of abnus leaves plucked and collected from the forest areas in Andhra Pradesh during 1997 season. Beedi-leaves are taxable at the point of sale by Corporation at 9%. The petitioners have undertaken to pay the tax as per the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. Accordingly, the Corporation has been demanding the payment of sales tax by the petitioners at 9% by way of reimbursement of the tax payable by the Corporation to the Department. The Corporation relied upon the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in reference No. A1(3)/ 2312/96, dated 18-10-1996. The impugned portion of the circular issued by the Commissioner is as ...
Shri Shirdi Sai Law College Rep. by Its Secretary and Correspondent, S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALT18
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, A.C.J.1. The petitioners in W.P. No. 27946 of 1997 are the students of Sri Shirdi Sai Law College, Anakapalli, (3rd respondent), and appeared for 2nd year examinations. The petitioners seek a direction to permit them to continue and complete their B.L. Degree till the approval is accorded by the Bar Council of India.2. The Secretary & Correspondent of the Law College is the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 27945 of 1997. In this writ petition the College prays for quashing the communication dated 19-5-1997 sent by the Bar Council of India disapproving the affiliation of the College. They also challenge the decision taken by the University at its meeting held on 3-6-1997 not to renew the temporary affiliation for the academic year 1997-98. At the same time the students were given opportunity to opt to affiliated Colleges in the Andhra University.3. We find no valid grounds to find fault with the decision taken by the Bar Council of India or the University. On the b...
J. Siva Sankara Rao Vs. Prl. Secretary to Govt., Transport, Roads and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD154; 1998(2)ALT293
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J. 1. Thequestion for consideration in this writ appeal s whether a writ can be issued in a matter which is purely contractual in nature not arising out of a statute nor depriving any fundamental right nor even a discriminatory order. This question has been answered not in one case but in a catena of decisions of both the Supreme Court and the High Courts.2. Before answering this question, it is appropriate to narrate a few facts which gave rise to this appeal. The appellant is a contractor. The 2nd respondent herein, viz., the Chief Engineer, National Highways, Errum Manzil, Hyderabad put up for auction the annual rights to collect toll fee at Kanakadurgamma varadhi across the river Krishna for the period from 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993. The appellant-petitioner was the highest bidder and he offered a sum of Rs.1,07,15,000/-. The same was accepted by the 2nd respondent. The Government by its order in G.O. Rt.No.278, Transport, Roads and Buildings(Roads-II-I) Depart...
Kurnool Dist. Rice Millers Association and ors. Vs. Agricultural Marke ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD167; 1998(1)ALT829
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the complaint is that even though there is no sale or purchase within the area of a Market Committee, they are being harassed and subjected to pay the market fees again and again. Under Section 12(1) of A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, the Market Committee is obligated to levy the fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area at the rate specified. There is a presumption under Explanation I to the above section that all notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock taken out of a notified market area shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been purchased or sold within such area. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 places an obligation on the purchaser to pay the said market fees and only if purchaser cannot be identified, then the market fees shall be paid by the seller. The scope of rel...
A.T.M. Rangaramanujam Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)ALD797; 1998CriLJ1169
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J 1. This Contempt Appeal is directed against the Order dated 29-1-1997 arising out of Criminal Petition No. 107 of 1997 and of a suo motu contempt case. 2. The appellant is a senior Advocate practicing since last about 40 years. In a bail petition, certain material papers were filed, which it seems, in some respects do not tally with the original material papers. The material allegation against the appellant was that as a Counsel for the accused in the bail petition he has not placed before the Court the matter written on the overleaf of the remand report giving the details of the seized property and only when the Court wanted, later the same was filed and after the Court found that the copy of the Panchanama, which was filed along with the bail petition, did not tally with the full papers filed on 18-1-1997, the explanation of the appellant was that whatever papers handed over by the person, who instructed him to file the bail petition, he had filed the same ...
C. Hanumantha Rao and anr. Vs. M. Prem Sudhakar Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD49; 1998(1)ALT754
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed in two appeals RANo. 5/96 and R.A.No. 6/96 by principal Subordinate Judge, Rangareddy district on 26th of September, 1997. The two appeals which have been decided by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge arose out of a judgment passed by the Rent Controller in a case between the parties being R.C.No. 15/92. He passed the order on 16th April, 1996 which had been challenged in appeals before the Principal Subordinate Judge.2. The controversy is very short and concerns the parties with respect to tenancy of a premises. The tenancy was not disputed. The quantum of rent was not disputed. Two points which were considered by the Rent Controller were (a) whether there was willful default of payment of rent, and (b) whether the tenant had secured alternative accommodation. The Rent Controller found that there was willful default in payment of rent and therefore he passed a decree of eviction. He did not find that the tenant had secured a...
Aitipamula Shivalingam and anr. Vs. Aitipamula Chinna Narsamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD241; 1998(2)ALT7
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J.1. Order in I.A.No. 292 of 1996 in O.S.No. 141 of l983 dated 9-8-1996 passed by the learned District Munsif. Ramannapet is the subject matter of this revision petition.2. Petitioners who are defendants in the suit O.S.No. 141 of 1983, filed I.A.No.292 of 1996 under order 18 Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code ('for short CPC') seeking permission of the Court to examine the first petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit as a witness, alter examining other witnesses on their behalf. The trial Court, on contest by the respondent-plaintiff dismissed the said application by an order dated 9-8-1996 while accepting the submissions made on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff.3. This revision petition originally came up for consideration before brother Justice B.S.A. Swamy. The question which arises for consideration in this revision is the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 CPC seeking permission of the Court to examine a witness after clo...